|
On April 10 2014 02:45 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 02:44 xM(Z wrote:I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed. Isn't this thread about 50% people doing that?
those people are considered by default not/anti-feminists.
what do moderate feminists do against bad feminists?
|
On April 10 2014 03:05 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 02:45 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 02:44 xM(Z wrote:I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed. Isn't this thread about 50% people doing that? those people are considered by default not-feminists. what do moderate feminists do against bad feminists?
oh so by "no one" you meant "no feminists"
well we shouldn't be considered not feminists. pretty sure people have called themselves feminists and said what some other people said under the banner of feminism is stupid in the same post. And if not then i'll take this opportunity to. Actually are there any examples of people in this thread supporting feminism and not acknowledging that there are extremists with misplaced values?
|
On April 10 2014 03:10 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 03:05 xM(Z wrote:On April 10 2014 02:45 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 02:44 xM(Z wrote:I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed. Isn't this thread about 50% people doing that? those people are considered by default not-feminists. what do moderate feminists do against bad feminists? oh so by "no one" you meant "no feminists" well we shouldn't be considered not feminists. pretty sure people have called themselves feminists and said what some other people said under the banner of feminism is stupid in the same post. And if not then i'll take this opportunity to.
yes, you acknowledged the existence of bad feminism. define it/give an example, then say what good-feminists do against it; (and i don't want to hear how you talk about it ... i want concrete, practical doings as examples)
to your edit: yes they acknowledge the existence of it but i consider that's not enough. you need to do something about it else every one of you is a hypocrite.
at best a hypocrite, at worst a tacit supporter.
|
On April 10 2014 03:16 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 03:10 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 03:05 xM(Z wrote:On April 10 2014 02:45 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 02:44 xM(Z wrote:I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed. Isn't this thread about 50% people doing that? those people are considered by default not-feminists. what do moderate feminists do against bad feminists? oh so by "no one" you meant "no feminists" well we shouldn't be considered not feminists. pretty sure people have called themselves feminists and said what some other people said under the banner of feminism is stupid in the same post. And if not then i'll take this opportunity to. yes, you acknowledged the existence of bad feminism. define it/give an example, then say what good-feminists do against it; (and i don't want to hear how you talk about it ... i want concrete, practical doings as examples) to your edit: yes they acknowledge the existence of it but i consider that's not enough. you need to do something about it else every one of you is a hypocrite.
You want everyone who is against oppression towards women to commit practical doings against radical feminists or else they are hypocrites? Well that's not what being a hypocrite means. I don't use anything but my voice and presence at rallies to oppose oppression against women in general, it would be hypocritical to oppress women day to day and still do that, but a lack of speaking out against other wrongs is not hypocritical by any definition of the word. I use the same strategy to oppose oppression against women as I use to oppose oppression against men. To continue the metaphor you are basically calling every Muslim that doesn't arrest terrorists a hypocrite. Given the opportunity I speak out against feminists with ideals oppressive towards men, but that is not a requirement of not being hypocritical if you want to stop oppression against women.
|
United States42568 Posts
On April 10 2014 03:16 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 03:10 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 03:05 xM(Z wrote:On April 10 2014 02:45 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 02:44 xM(Z wrote:I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. but you see, no one in here is doing that. everyone rallies against bad muslims, other muslims included, but no one rallies against bad feminism (talking about other non-radical feminists). bad muslims are considered terrorists, are killed or imprisoned; bad feminists are left alone and used for the fear factor when needed. Isn't this thread about 50% people doing that? those people are considered by default not-feminists. what do moderate feminists do against bad feminists? oh so by "no one" you meant "no feminists" well we shouldn't be considered not feminists. pretty sure people have called themselves feminists and said what some other people said under the banner of feminism is stupid in the same post. And if not then i'll take this opportunity to. yes, you acknowledged the existence of bad feminism. define it/give an example, then say what good-feminists do against it; (and i don't want to hear how you talk about it ... i want concrete, practical doings as examples) to your edit: yes they acknowledge the existence of it but i consider that's not enough. you need to do something about it else every one of you is a hypocrite. at best a hypocrite, at worst a tacit supporter.
Basically if you're not batman then how can you really criticise crime?
|
On April 10 2014 03:01 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 02:48 GoTuNk! wrote:On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 00:55 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:51 ComaDose wrote:On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote:
I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does. If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men. Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something. Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men? Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies.
Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either.
If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have. There is a wide range of Hollywood movies and series. I would not consider "male power fantasies" the recent trend of retarded male protagonists who can't keep their shit together, as opposed to their feminine counterparts. See any Warner series or non-action hollywood movies. Plenty target female fantasies aswell (you know there are romantic movies right?) I don't understand why it is sad to make movies about people's fantasies, I tought that was the fucking point of movies in a sense. Moreover, I don't get why feminism is so bent on critizising man for being manly. Ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like. Is something inspiring as "Gladiator" a male power fantasy movie? Could you elaborate on which movies belong to this "genre"? A general definition with a few examples would be great. I mentioned the Bechdel test as a pretty good baseline for evaluation. It basically asks if there are two named female characters that talk about something other than a man. It is remarkable and i used the word sad how few movies pass this simple test of inclusion. There is literally only 1 named female character in gladiator. There are examples of good movies and bad movies obviously, no one said it was bad to target peoples fantasies. No one is criticizing men for ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like and I don't know why you think that. But can you explain why these things are manly as opposed to womanly?
Tradition mostly. It is not that woman can't show these traits, but they are what is generally expected as being "manly". "Womanly" would be being supportive and nurturing.
Why would Gladiator or something like troy have to pass the "Bechdel" test? They are basically movies about warfare in ancient greece/rome, so it is to be expected that man play all the leading roles, as they did historically. For example, if they make a movie about Mike Tayson's road to world title, it would be reasonable to not show any woman.
Obviously you are gonna say this is because of cultural sexism. I would counter that proposition saying that "manly" values stem mostly from warfare tradition, in which woman did not participate because of biological limitations.
|
On April 10 2014 04:41 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 03:01 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 02:48 GoTuNk! wrote:On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 00:55 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:51 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men. Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something. Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men? Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies.
Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either.
If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have. There is a wide range of Hollywood movies and series. I would not consider "male power fantasies" the recent trend of retarded male protagonists who can't keep their shit together, as opposed to their feminine counterparts. See any Warner series or non-action hollywood movies. Plenty target female fantasies aswell (you know there are romantic movies right?) I don't understand why it is sad to make movies about people's fantasies, I tought that was the fucking point of movies in a sense. Moreover, I don't get why feminism is so bent on critizising man for being manly. Ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like. Is something inspiring as "Gladiator" a male power fantasy movie? Could you elaborate on which movies belong to this "genre"? A general definition with a few examples would be great. I mentioned the Bechdel test as a pretty good baseline for evaluation. It basically asks if there are two named female characters that talk about something other than a man. It is remarkable and i used the word sad how few movies pass this simple test of inclusion. There is literally only 1 named female character in gladiator. There are examples of good movies and bad movies obviously, no one said it was bad to target peoples fantasies. No one is criticizing men for ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like and I don't know why you think that. But can you explain why these things are manly as opposed to womanly? Tradition mostly. It is not that woman can't show these traits, but they are what is generally expected as being "manly". "Womanly" would be being supportive and nurturing. Why would Gladiator or something like troy have to pass the "Bechdel" test? They are basically movies about warfare in ancient greece/rome, so it is to be expected that man play all the leading roles, as they did historically. For example, if they make a movie about Mike Tayson's road to world title, it would be reasonable to not show any woman. Obviously you are gonna say this is because of cultural sexism. I would counter that proposition saying that "manly" values stem mostly from warfare tradition, in which woman did not participate because of biological limitations.
No one said these movies should have women in them. Just that it is sad to consider the ratio of movies that pass the test. It is a really really low bar to just have two named female characters talk about something other than men. Yet the majority do fail, including original Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, all but one of the Harry Potter movies, Avatar, etc. The point is not that these movies are bad or anti-women, or that movies that do pass the test are pro feminist or something. Its just an obvious metric to exemplify how this media favours men. I think we are a little more educated than to say being hard working or honest is manly though.
|
On April 10 2014 05:14 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 04:41 GoTuNk! wrote:On April 10 2014 03:01 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 02:48 GoTuNk! wrote:On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 00:55 RockIronrod wrote:
[quote]
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something. Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men? Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies.
Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either.
If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have. There is a wide range of Hollywood movies and series. I would not consider "male power fantasies" the recent trend of retarded male protagonists who can't keep their shit together, as opposed to their feminine counterparts. See any Warner series or non-action hollywood movies. Plenty target female fantasies aswell (you know there are romantic movies right?) I don't understand why it is sad to make movies about people's fantasies, I tought that was the fucking point of movies in a sense. Moreover, I don't get why feminism is so bent on critizising man for being manly. Ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like. Is something inspiring as "Gladiator" a male power fantasy movie? Could you elaborate on which movies belong to this "genre"? A general definition with a few examples would be great. I mentioned the Bechdel test as a pretty good baseline for evaluation. It basically asks if there are two named female characters that talk about something other than a man. It is remarkable and i used the word sad how few movies pass this simple test of inclusion. There is literally only 1 named female character in gladiator. There are examples of good movies and bad movies obviously, no one said it was bad to target peoples fantasies. No one is criticizing men for ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like and I don't know why you think that. But can you explain why these things are manly as opposed to womanly? Tradition mostly. It is not that woman can't show these traits, but they are what is generally expected as being "manly". "Womanly" would be being supportive and nurturing. Why would Gladiator or something like troy have to pass the "Bechdel" test? They are basically movies about warfare in ancient greece/rome, so it is to be expected that man play all the leading roles, as they did historically. For example, if they make a movie about Mike Tayson's road to world title, it would be reasonable to not show any woman. Obviously you are gonna say this is because of cultural sexism. I would counter that proposition saying that "manly" values stem mostly from warfare tradition, in which woman did not participate because of biological limitations. No one said these movies should have women in them. Just that it is sad to consider the ratio of movies that pass the test. It is a really really low bar to just have two named female characters talk about something other than men. Yet the majority do fail, including original Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, all but one of the Harry Potter movies, Avatar, etc. The point is not that these movies are bad or anti-women, or that movies that do pass the test are pro feminist or something. Its just an obvious metric to exemplify how this media favours men. I think we are a little more educated than to say being hard working or honest is manly though.
That makes sense, though I wouldn' say its Hollywood's fault. If having an all female cast movie would bring revenue I'm sure they would exist (I would bet this is not particularly popular among woman)
Not saying woman can't work hard or be honest. By hard working and honest I mean the extremes though, stuff like what soldiers used to endure in rome/greek period. Same for honesty, more in the lines of people getting executed for refusing to turn on their ideals. Not saying woman can't do this, but most examples of this are men.
A modern example of hard working would be something Chinese weightlifters; there are many woman who train among them.
|
On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 00:55 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:51 ComaDose wrote:On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote:
I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does. If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men. Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something. Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men? Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? Show nested quote +I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies.
Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either.
If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have.
Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
|
On April 10 2014 05:24 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 05:14 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 04:41 GoTuNk! wrote:On April 10 2014 03:01 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 02:48 GoTuNk! wrote:On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men? Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies.
Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either.
If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have. There is a wide range of Hollywood movies and series. I would not consider "male power fantasies" the recent trend of retarded male protagonists who can't keep their shit together, as opposed to their feminine counterparts. See any Warner series or non-action hollywood movies. Plenty target female fantasies aswell (you know there are romantic movies right?) I don't understand why it is sad to make movies about people's fantasies, I tought that was the fucking point of movies in a sense. Moreover, I don't get why feminism is so bent on critizising man for being manly. Ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like. Is something inspiring as "Gladiator" a male power fantasy movie? Could you elaborate on which movies belong to this "genre"? A general definition with a few examples would be great. I mentioned the Bechdel test as a pretty good baseline for evaluation. It basically asks if there are two named female characters that talk about something other than a man. It is remarkable and i used the word sad how few movies pass this simple test of inclusion. There is literally only 1 named female character in gladiator. There are examples of good movies and bad movies obviously, no one said it was bad to target peoples fantasies. No one is criticizing men for ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like and I don't know why you think that. But can you explain why these things are manly as opposed to womanly? Tradition mostly. It is not that woman can't show these traits, but they are what is generally expected as being "manly". "Womanly" would be being supportive and nurturing. Why would Gladiator or something like troy have to pass the "Bechdel" test? They are basically movies about warfare in ancient greece/rome, so it is to be expected that man play all the leading roles, as they did historically. For example, if they make a movie about Mike Tayson's road to world title, it would be reasonable to not show any woman. Obviously you are gonna say this is because of cultural sexism. I would counter that proposition saying that "manly" values stem mostly from warfare tradition, in which woman did not participate because of biological limitations. No one said these movies should have women in them. Just that it is sad to consider the ratio of movies that pass the test. It is a really really low bar to just have two named female characters talk about something other than men. Yet the majority do fail, including original Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, all but one of the Harry Potter movies, Avatar, etc. The point is not that these movies are bad or anti-women, or that movies that do pass the test are pro feminist or something. Its just an obvious metric to exemplify how this media favours men. I think we are a little more educated than to say being hard working or honest is manly though. That makes sense, though I wouldn' say its Hollywood's fault. If having an all female cast movie would bring revenue I'm sure they would exist (I would bet this is not particularly popular among woman) Not saying woman can't work hard or be honest. By hard working and honest I mean the extremes though, stuff like what soldiers used to endure in rome/greek period. Same for honesty, more in the lines of people getting executed for refusing to turn on their ideals. Not saying woman can't do this, but most examples of this are men. A modern example of hard working would be something Chinese weightlifters; there are many woman who train among them.
Just to remind you we are not talking about all female casts, just two females that have 1 line of dialog toward one another, super low bar. and I do blame Hollywood considering 82 percent of all executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers and editors hired for the top 250 domestic grossing films of 2012 were men. Only 9 percent of directors are female. You may say there are no good female directors but such staggering numbers at least warrant entertaining the idea that men are preferred. It's been proven in other fields with blind auditions so there is at least precedent for such behavior. Hollywood is quite literally a bunch of men making movies about men for men.
We should also probably stop making generalizations about genders based on ancient war times :/
|
On April 10 2014 05:32 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 00:55 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:51 ComaDose wrote:On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote:
I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does. If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men. Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something. Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men? Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies.
Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either.
If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have. Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
It's an example thing. Transformers 2 passes it, but saying that still misses the point
|
On April 10 2014 05:36 Zealos wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 05:32 Darkwhite wrote:On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 00:55 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:51 ComaDose wrote:On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote:
I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does. If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men. Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something. Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men? Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies.
Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either.
If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have. Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism. It's an example thing. Transformers 2 passes it, but saying that still misses the point
And here I thought the test was missing the point, when a movie literally all about a female lead fails not because of sexism, but because it has a very small cast.
|
On April 10 2014 05:32 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 00:55 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:51 ComaDose wrote:On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote:
I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does. If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men. Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something. Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men? Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies.
Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either.
If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have. Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism.
once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist.
and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test.
|
On April 10 2014 05:46 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 05:32 Darkwhite wrote:On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 00:55 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:51 ComaDose wrote:On April 09 2014 23:51 RockIronrod wrote:
I think Muslims are pretty uncomfortable about having terrorists under the same banner as them, though sadly they don't have the privilege of defining their group to exclude violent extremists like a social movement does. If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men. Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something. Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men? Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies.
Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either.
If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have. Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism. once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test.
It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all.
What exactly are you sad about then?
|
United States42568 Posts
The Bechdel test is not literally intended to be a test, it was a single joke in a single panel of a comic that was never intended to be more than a witty observation into gender roles in Hollywood and strictly applying it to random movies in an attempt to prove or disprove anything is absurd.
|
On April 10 2014 05:48 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 05:46 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 05:32 Darkwhite wrote:On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 00:55 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:51 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
If i have the privilege of defining my social movement to exclude extremists then boom done problem solved. feminism isn't about murdering all men. Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something. Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men? Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies.
Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either.
If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have. Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism. once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test. Show nested quote +It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. What exactly are you sad about then?
What isn't clear? It is sad how few films pass the Bechdel test. Women are not close to proportionately represented in Hollywood films. This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it or Hollywood. But I do think there is value when we consider all movies and the ratio that do pass.
edit: to be more concise it would be more relevant to compare the number of movies that pass to the number of movies that pass it in reverse.
|
On April 10 2014 05:24 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 05:14 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 04:41 GoTuNk! wrote:On April 10 2014 03:01 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 02:48 GoTuNk! wrote:On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men? Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies.
Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either.
If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have. There is a wide range of Hollywood movies and series. I would not consider "male power fantasies" the recent trend of retarded male protagonists who can't keep their shit together, as opposed to their feminine counterparts. See any Warner series or non-action hollywood movies. Plenty target female fantasies aswell (you know there are romantic movies right?) I don't understand why it is sad to make movies about people's fantasies, I tought that was the fucking point of movies in a sense. Moreover, I don't get why feminism is so bent on critizising man for being manly. Ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like. Is something inspiring as "Gladiator" a male power fantasy movie? Could you elaborate on which movies belong to this "genre"? A general definition with a few examples would be great. I mentioned the Bechdel test as a pretty good baseline for evaluation. It basically asks if there are two named female characters that talk about something other than a man. It is remarkable and i used the word sad how few movies pass this simple test of inclusion. There is literally only 1 named female character in gladiator. There are examples of good movies and bad movies obviously, no one said it was bad to target peoples fantasies. No one is criticizing men for ambition, courage, hard work, valuing tradition, honor, honesty and the like and I don't know why you think that. But can you explain why these things are manly as opposed to womanly? Tradition mostly. It is not that woman can't show these traits, but they are what is generally expected as being "manly". "Womanly" would be being supportive and nurturing. Why would Gladiator or something like troy have to pass the "Bechdel" test? They are basically movies about warfare in ancient greece/rome, so it is to be expected that man play all the leading roles, as they did historically. For example, if they make a movie about Mike Tayson's road to world title, it would be reasonable to not show any woman. Obviously you are gonna say this is because of cultural sexism. I would counter that proposition saying that "manly" values stem mostly from warfare tradition, in which woman did not participate because of biological limitations. No one said these movies should have women in them. Just that it is sad to consider the ratio of movies that pass the test. It is a really really low bar to just have two named female characters talk about something other than men. Yet the majority do fail, including original Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, all but one of the Harry Potter movies, Avatar, etc. The point is not that these movies are bad or anti-women, or that movies that do pass the test are pro feminist or something. Its just an obvious metric to exemplify how this media favours men. I think we are a little more educated than to say being hard working or honest is manly though. That makes sense, though I wouldn' say its Hollywood's fault. If having an all female cast movie would bring revenue I'm sure they would exist (I would bet this is not particularly popular among woman) Not saying woman can't work hard or be honest. By hard working and honest I mean the extremes though, stuff like what soldiers used to endure in rome/greek period. Same for honesty, more in the lines of people getting executed for refusing to turn on their ideals. Not saying woman can't do this, but most examples of this are men. A modern example of hard working would be something Chinese weightlifters; there are many woman who train among them.
Our genes are based upon years upon years of history. The more intricate one species act in a certain way, the more the genes alters to it.
Historically speaking, the gender role have been that the male are mostly (when I say mostly, I mean more than 90% of the time) one to take heavy risks such hunting for food in the wild, experimenting w/ scientific mixtures, exploring into uncharted territories through sea or through space. Women are most likely to take the safe alternatives in farming and utilizing her charms in order to manipulate men to do her deeds (see Helen of Troy and Diao Chan from Romance of Three Kingdom).
Because of 95% (more or less) of our history is based upon the listed above gender roles, women and men excels at different tasks. Women are better at at psychological warfare because they can't take men heads on in a full frontal battle. They are expert at deception and conversational flow. They also have this almost "sacred" portion of their body that is their reproductive organs (this is scarcity at play as number of sperms far exceed the number of eggs in women) which is why they mostly protected as they are the one the productive ability of a species is proportional to the number of females in the society.
But there are always this symbiotic relationship b/w men and women. Men rewarded women's beauty and femininity by working harder for their wives (jewelries, houses, cars, makeups, etc.). It has ALWAYS been a fair exchange b/w the sexes at the most essential level. And btw women objectifies men just as much we objectify them. But our objection are mostly based on visual while they objectify us on what we can accomplish and our wealth.
Here is where feminism comes into the play that they want "equal rights" b/w the sexes. Well for starter, everything is about a transaction of something. We trade our wealth for beautiful ladies (well the richer you are, the more likely you'll have a beautiful spouse). So when women want to be LESS objectified for their looks, there have to have another balance to equalize it and that is to decrease their looks (you see this in countless examples where if a women put her careers before everything are less likely to take her of her looks due to not wanting to be objectified). A women's most beautiful stage is b/w age 18 to 30. And now there are many career-oriented feminist out there who are complaining and shaming men for being attracted to younger and more feminine girls. That's like saying that men should fight millions years of evolutionary genes and all you ancestor's experience.
|
On April 10 2014 05:52 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 05:48 Darkwhite wrote:On April 10 2014 05:46 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 05:32 Darkwhite wrote:On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 00:55 RockIronrod wrote:
[quote]
Cool, get a majority to agree with you and maybe you've actually accomplished something. Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men? Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies.
Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either.
If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have. Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism. once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. What exactly are you sad about then? What isn't clear? It is sad how few films pass the Bechdel test. Women are not close to proportionately represented in Hollywood films. This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it or Hollywood. But I do think there is value when we consider all movies and the ratio that do pass. edit: to be more concise it would be more relevant to compare the number of movies that pass to the number of movies that pass it in reverse.
What isn't clear is why you expect the test to produce a meaningful ratio despite its plentiful and comical false positives and false negatives. I can practically guarantee that Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood - what does this tell us about sexism in the United States and in India?
|
On April 10 2014 06:20 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 05:52 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 05:48 Darkwhite wrote:On April 10 2014 05:46 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 05:32 Darkwhite wrote:On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 00:56 ComaDose wrote:
[quote]
Should I take a pole? Or is it reasonable to assume that the majority of feminists do not want to murder all men? Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism? It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies.
Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either.
If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have. Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism. once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. What exactly are you sad about then? What isn't clear? It is sad how few films pass the Bechdel test. Women are not close to proportionately represented in Hollywood films. This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it or Hollywood. But I do think there is value when we consider all movies and the ratio that do pass. edit: to be more concise it would be more relevant to compare the number of movies that pass to the number of movies that pass it in reverse. What isn't clear is why you expect the test to produce a meaningful ratio despite its plentiful and comical false positives and false negatives. I can practically guarantee that Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood - what does this tell us about sexism in the United States and in India?
There are zero false positives and negatives? the test isn't determining sexism... i don't know why you keep bringing it up and i'm not sure how much simpler i can explain it. If Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood it means that women are more represented in Bollywood movies obviously.
|
On April 10 2014 06:28 ComaDose wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2014 06:20 Darkwhite wrote:On April 10 2014 05:52 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 05:48 Darkwhite wrote:On April 10 2014 05:46 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 05:32 Darkwhite wrote:On April 10 2014 02:22 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:57 RockIronrod wrote:On April 10 2014 01:48 ComaDose wrote:On April 10 2014 01:04 RockIronrod wrote:
[quote]
Are people who pull fire alarms to shut down contrary opinions feminists? How about that woman who wanted to outlaw speaking against feminism?
It's easy to say something ridiculous like only people who want to straight fucking murder someone aren't, though good luck telling the "die cis scum" fanatics they're not allowed in your clubhouse any more. you're right that will be hard. i guess i don't have the privilege after all. You can't change your race or your religion's beliefs, you can change your social movement, even if it is "hard." That's why your comparison was dumb. What? No one is talking about changing beliefs at all... Some Muslims believe being Muslim is killing american infidels, some Muslims don't. Some feminists believe killing all straight cis white men is feminism, some feminists don't. You talked about how one of these has the privilege to redefine their beliefs to exclude the extremists. I disagree and see no difference in how Muslims saying those are bad Muslims is different from feminists saying those are bad feminists. It might actually be easier for religion because generally they have a more centered authority. and also why are you talking about race? I've never seen those ads, probably because I'm in another country. What I do see is interviews with Suey Park who blatantly says her interviewer can't have an opinion because he's white, a professors who stole from and clawed a teen girl, protesters shutting down anything to do with men's rights by creating public disturbances or pulling fire alarms, women spray painting men in the eyes while they circle their church to stop it from vandalism, every movie this side of Gravity being lambasted for being male power fantasies.
Everything in the news just seems more like self-empowerment than it does an equality movement. Maybe that's just the 24/7 new cycle being depressive, but I haven't seen much good outside of it on a person by person account online either.
If all I see are radicals, where are the non-radicals? This is a pretty good Canadian movement for example. I will continue to denounce anyone that tells anyone they don't have an opinion obviously. You realize that the majority of Hollywood movies are exactly male power fantasies? That's what gets the views. and this is a good example because they are not slowing down in production at all despite feminism taking over the world. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. The non radicals are helping rape victims, abused spouses, and raising awareness about discrimination against women. I think they are easier to spot than the radicals but naturally you find what you are looking for which might explain why you have found what you have. Gravity fails the Bechdel test. It is a terrible yardstick for sexism. once again: no one said movies that fail / pass this test are sexist / not sexist. and that movie also fails the reverse Bechdel test. It's really sad how few films pass the Bechdel test or even include a female character not for sex appeal at all. What exactly are you sad about then? What isn't clear? It is sad how few films pass the Bechdel test. Women are not close to proportionately represented in Hollywood films. This doesn't mean that a movie that passes the test or not is more or less sexist than another movie. This "test" applied to one movie doesn't say anything about it or Hollywood. But I do think there is value when we consider all movies and the ratio that do pass. edit: to be more concise it would be more relevant to compare the number of movies that pass to the number of movies that pass it in reverse. What isn't clear is why you expect the test to produce a meaningful ratio despite its plentiful and comical false positives and false negatives. I can practically guarantee that Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood - what does this tell us about sexism in the United States and in India? There are zero false positives and negatives? the test isn't determining sexism... i don't know why you keep bringing it up and i'm not sure how much simpler i can explain it. If Bollywood movies get a much better Bechdel score than Hollywood it means that women are more represented in Bollywood movies obviously.
If it was just about representation, then why does it matter whether female characters are having a conversation, and whether they are conversing about men? Why not just count female characters or female screen time and be done with it?
Why does Wikipedia write as if it was about something much more subtle?
The test, which has been described as "the standard by which feminist critics judge television, movies, books, and other media", moved into mainstream criticism in the 2010s.[13] By 2013, an Internet newspaper described it as "almost a household phrase, common shorthand to capture whether a film is woman-friendly",[14] and the failure of major Hollywood productions such as Pacific Rim (2013) to pass it was addressed in depth in the media.[15] According to Neda Ulaby, the test still resonates because "it articulates something often missing in popular culture: not the number of women we see on screen, but the depth of their stories, and the range of their concerns."[10]
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
